Posted on 10/19/2001 1:07:53 PM PDT by freedomnews
First, Clinton did not consider China a threat; he most certainly embraced China and allowed flagrant and repeated violations of EVERY SINGLE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY China ever signed to go unpunished.
Please see the following Congressional reports:
CRS96-889 “China: Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND) and Defense Industries,” Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Shirley A. Kan, December 3, 1997.
CRS94-422S, “Chinese Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Policies: Implications and Options for the United States,” Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Robert G. Sutter, Senior Specialist In International Politics, Office of Senior Specialists, March 24, 1994.
CRS94-92F, “China: Current U.S. Sanctions,” Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Kerry Dumbaugh, Specialist in Asian Affairs with the Assistance of James Casey Sullivan, Office of Senior Specialists, Updated April 14, 1995.
CRS92056: “Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Policy Issues,” Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Shirley A. Kan, June 1, 1998.
CRS98-485 F, “China: Possible Missile Technology Transfers from U.S. Satellite Export Policy - Background and Chronology,” Congressional Research Service, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Shirley A. Kan, June 12, 1998.
CRS94002: “China-U.S. Relations,” Congressional Research Service, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Kerry Dumbaugh, November 25, 1996.
Further, the Clinton Administration DID change the rules to allow China to buy dual-use telecommunications equipment:
General Accounting Office of the United States Report #GAO/NSIAD-97-5, “Export Controls: Sale of Telecommunications Equipment to China,” Letter Report, November 13, 1996.
The New York Times, “Donor's Actions Raise New Questions on Buying Access to President,” by Stephen Labaton, December 27, 1996.
EX. ORD. NO. 12981. ADMINISTRATION OF EXPORT CONTROLS, Ex. Ord. No. 12981, Dec. 5, 1995, 60 F.R. 62981, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 13020, Oct. 12, 1996, 61 F.R. 54079; Ex. Ord. No.13026, Sec. 1(b), Nov. 15, 1996, 61 F.R. 58767, William Jefferson Clinton.
Next, the Clinton Administration DID coddle Russia. See "Improving Russia’s Access to Early Warning Information, Preliminary Results,” Congressional Budget Office, June O’Neil, September 3, 1998. The Democrats asked for nearly $1B to sustain Russia's military; after a dog-fight, they got only $444M through the Congress.
As for bin Laden; Saudi Arabia offered to hand bin Laden over to us in 1996. The Clinton Administration DROPPED THE BALL and only picked it up again during the Impeachment. They also DROPPED THE BALL in Iraq by allowing our inspectors to thrown out, retaliating with a meaningless bombing raid, and then not DOING ANYTHING to get our folks back in there.
The US inspector for the UN testified before Congress that the White House LIED to him repeatedly. If anyone can dig up his testimony, I'd appreciate it. I think I've supplied our friend with enough reports to keep them busy for a while.
I've offered plenty of evidence suggesting Ron Brown, the conduit for much of the restricted technology the Clinton administration passed to the Chinese in exchange for ILLEGAL campaign contributions, was murdered because he was about to turn state's evidence about Chinagate and campaign finance illegalities. And I've repeatedly offered to debate you about that evidence. But you keep RUNNING. Why, Hidy?
Even if I allowed your analogy to stand despite its histrical error, on the one hand we have US troops under US command doing something in October. On the other hand, we have a foreign intelligence service giving us arguably questionable information in March, with no forces in place.
In other words, even if the Somalia debacle occurred in 1992, as you erroneously claim, your analogy still sucks. Better luck next time.
But I understand your general point, that on this forum, criticism of the former administration comes quicker. On the other hand, we have the Washington Post and the New York Times to balance the scale.
Incidentally, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin resigned over the Somalia dêbacle. He gets a lot of respect for that. I wonder sometimes that if Bill Clinton had asked more of his appointees to fall on their swords at the appropriate times, then maybe some of his scandals might have gone away faster. On the other hand, his damage-control crew was tops.
Because of the timing, coming just a couple of days after his disasterous speech after he testified before Starr. And, as it turns out, Clinton was nowhere close to hitting bin Laden. Couple that with the attack on the Sudanese asprin factory on completely bogus intel (one soil sample purportedly showing traces of empta, which you can also get from spraying Round-Up on weeds), and it was a wag-the-dog. As for Bush not getting bin Laden when he got the chance - Bush had been in office for all of two months and still did not have the nation fully behind him. He does now. And he is moving strongly to get bin Laden AND other terrorist groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.